DNA Column – Depth of Focus – The importance, or the lack of it, of being PM

 Articles, elections, India, Politics  No Responses »
May 162013
 

My Column in today’s DNA

One of Oscar Wilde’s most famous plays was the Importance of Being Earnest, A Trivial Comedy for Serious People. A hilarious farce, it tells the journey of people who cover up their follies and foibles with assumed persona and nifty wordplay. The play revolves around John Worthing, a sort of staid and boring man, and his alter ego — the fun-loving Earnest and his wooing of a young lady. When asked about his parentage, Earnest tells the girl’s mother that he lost both of them, as an infant. The mother, Lady Bracknell, then goes on to utter one of the most famous lines in English Drama “To lose one parent, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness. “
These were the lines that came to mind on Friday, when the prime minister lost not just one, but two ministers to growing public pressure. Pawan Bansal stepped down after his nephew Vijay Singla was arrested red-handed taking a bribe of Rs90 lakh to fix a railway board appointment. Bansal, at first denied, then blustered, then fattened a goat (we still don’t know if it was sacrificed), and then when all else failed went to the prime minister’s office and resigned. He, of course, denied that he had any business dealings with his nephew. While Bansal’s case was clear cut, nephew caught with hand in the till — the case of the second sacrificial goat, law minister Ashwani Kumar, was much more complex. He made changes to the CBI report on coal allocation and told the courts that he merely acted as copy editor, correcting grammar. The supreme court took a dim view of the verbal jugglery and spanked the government, in public, for changing the “heart of the report”. The government got upbraided further for keeping the CBI caged like a “parrot with many masters”. An untenable position for a law minister to be publicly reprimanded by the highest court in the country. After much dithering he too went. In both cases the Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi and the newly anointed general secretary Rahul Gandhi were supposed to have played a key role in ensuring their exit — or so the media leaks said. No one in the media sought to ask, why the party chief is taking a call on the cabinet that ought to be the sole purview of the prime minister.
UPA II reminds one of the Oscar Wilde play beyond the Lady Bracknell quote. It is the very adoption of the dual persona — that tries to balance an out-dated concept of hereditary leadership with much more modern concepts of constitutional institutions, checks and balances and separation of powers. It is the portrayal of a façade of ‘all is well’ when it is not. Add to this, the sophisticated nifty wordplay that seeks to put out fires — “zero loss”, “grammar changes” for example. And, while both the dual persona and catchy sound bytes are great to watch as entertainment, they erode credibility.
If anything has been the hallmark of the current government, it is the violation of procedures and processes, leading to favours for friends and family — also known as cronies. In earlier years of this government, the spokespeople could get away by saying “coalition dharma”, but with the coalition itself in tatters there is no one left to blame. While individual ministers have taken decisions that have bent the rules, the trail seems to stop with them. In an ideal world the prime minister is first amongst equals and has the authority to get his team, the cabinet, to deliver; he takes credit when it does, and is accountable and responsible when it does not. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case with this government. And, that is for one very good reason — authority and responsibility have been split. Authority seems to rest with Ms Gandhi and accountability with Singh. The prime minister’s office ought to be the epicentre of decision-making in India. But, the current regime has seen a tremendous whittling down of the institution of the prime minister and his office. The strategy of a dual power centre might have done the party good, but in turn it has damaged the process of decision making, and the office of the prime minister. And, now the tussle between the government of India and the largest political party that controls it for power, has spilled out into the open.
In a world where 24-hour instant media dominates, having a reticent, media-shy PM does not help. While one does not expect the prime minister of India to be conducting affairs of the State under the arc lights of television studios, periodic interaction with the voter would have gone some way in restoring some of the credibility of the office of the prime minister. The key points to remember are that parliament represents India and makes laws for India; the cabinet or the executive executes or implements the law for all India. While members may belong to different political parties, they work for India. The prime minister of India is not a party post; it is the post of the actual (as opposed to nominal) head of government. And that authority of the office, of decision making, is what needs to be restored. The principle of unity of command — where one person only reports to one boss — has to be restored. While in a complex organisation such as government, there may be many who choose to influence, but decision-making has to be left at one point to the cabinet led by the prime minister. This diarchy — of having two heads of government — is costing the country dear by decimating the command structure of the executive. It needs to end for the good of the country.

Tehelka – Twitter echo chambers and the “hashtag wars”

 Articles  No Responses »
Apr 212013
 

My blog for Tehelka

When RahIllustration: Samia Singhul Gandhi addressed the CII conference, those who oppose him and his party, got #PappuCII (stupid) to trend on Twitter. A few days later when Narendra Modi addressed the FICCI conference, Congress supporters on Twitter got #Feku (someone who makes tall claims) to trend. (Hashtags are a useful way of classifying and searching for data on the internet. Twitter’s hashtags are explained here) You would think that this little tu tu mein mein would be the end of the matter. A bit of playground fun and humour by over-enthusiastic supporters on both sides, who are willing to rain on the other party. But no, this was just the beginning. The mainstream media –TV and print – jumped onto the bandwagon, at first by the use of the hashtags – either deliberately or inadvertently – and then by devoting space and time to the so called “Twitter wars”. Which is all fine in itself, after all it is their space and their time and they can fill it with anything they want. But for one problem – they make the issue seem bigger than it is, and more important that it should be.

Everyone on Twitter does not have the humour of a 13-year-old on the playground, busy dreaming up names for authority figures. What you have is a small, vocal, motivated, active and dedicated minority on both sides, who thrive on polarising the issue. The type for whom the dictum ‘if you aren’t for us, you are against us’ holds true. The real life equivalent of people on the streets taking out a morcha and shouting hai hai. The only reason it is interesting is because you see this on your screens wherever you are, it is in English, and journalists and influencers of the mainstream media are on the same platform.

While the mainstream media is a closed clique, Twitter can be an echo chamber – and it is this echo that makes events seem more important than they are. However, to give it its due, Twitter also allows more diverse voices to echo, more diverse opinion to gain shape. The echo can become noise, all sides screaming simultaneously, or agitating against the other, but it is by no means the only expression on the medium. The noise is possibly a fraction of the conversations that take place across the spectrum on a daily basis. But the mainstream media tends to reduce issues to a yes or no, oppose or support. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that instead of looking at diversity and plurality of views – even within the so called left or right online – the focus is on those who choose to polarise. This is also pretty much the way the real world is covered.

Despite the fractious last four years in politics, legislations have been passed, committees have met, work has taken place, and representatives across parties in Parliament and in state legislatures, have contributed to this. Yet, all that is seen is the dissent, the walk-outs, the screaming at each other in TV studios, the grandstanding, the nautanki- essentially sound byte politics. In a broadcast world where sound bytes rule, it is hardly surprising that Twitter is the chosen medium. Everything is reduced to 140 characters – that is great for headlines, great for fuelling more conflict, and great for projecting a world that is intrinsically polarised. That polarised world does not exist outside the TV studios and those who get hashtags to trend. News channels are happy because they get instant conflict ridden content; those who trend hashtags are happy because their view is presented as the only world view. And as always, the middle ground is left out. Most of the world is rather fuzzy in its choices, with neither committed party members nor haters.

The fact that Mr Gandhi & Mr Modi are talking to the people on vision and issues, and how they see the world is a great start. After a long time we are hearing content beyond caste, community and magic wands. What ought to be discussed is not the antics of activist supporters on social media, but the policy and vision of the two individuals. In focusing on the trivial and the banal, the really important is left out. Messrs Gandhi and Modi, whether we like them or not, are two individuals whose vision is going to shape public policy and the direction India takes both internally and on the world stage, depending on whose alliance comes to power in 2014. It is time that that vision is discussed beyond Twitter.

DNA Column – Depth of Focus – Can Social Media impact Elections ?

 Articles, India, Media, Politics, Society, Web  No Responses »
Apr 182013
 

My column in today’s DNA

The 2008 American elections — also called the Facebook elections — were different from any other that was held before it. It was the first time that candidates across the board attempted to connect directly with the voter-using technology. Facebook, Myspace and email — twitter was not that popular — were all brought into play in the attempt to woo the voter. None of the candidates used the technology as well as Barack Obama did in connecting with the young, technology-savvy demographic. Obama, then an unknown minor representative from Chicago, used the power and ubiquitous nature of social media to interact, to put out messages, to raise funds, to organise and to campaign to an audience that did not watch television, and was not interested in the discourse of the older generation. That audience — the under-25 American voter — in turn voted overwhelmingly for him. The rest, as they say, was history.

Since the 2008 US elections, the promise of social media impacting elections has been held out in India. But, a parliamentary election is different from a Presidential one. Mr Advani tried to use social media in 2009, but internet participation was still at a nascent stage, and it really did not make any difference in the elections. Since then the Indian-right has effectively used social media to counter views, put forth opinion, and build credibility. The Indian National Congress has woken up to the fact that there is a social media audience that speaks a very different language from those of traditional campaigns, and has begun participating in the discourse. It seems like there is a battle on for the hearts and minds — not to mention votes — of those who inhabit cyberspace. But, unlike the US, the internet is neither as pervasive, nor as well utilised.

There are approximately 140 million internet users in India — about 11% of the total population. Facebook is increasingly popular with the Indian audience. Most of us have a story of an office boy or a grocer who has a Facebook page and has sent us an invite. According to leading social media monitoring agency, Social Bakers, Indians are the third most populous nationality on social media — the US is number one, and Brazil is number 2. In March this year, there were 61.5 million Facebook accounts out of India. By April this figure jumped to almost 64 million accounts — 76% between the ages of 18 & 34, and 75% male. While the numbers in absolute terms are impressive, this represents 5.44% of the total Indian population.

In the last general elections, there were 716 million registered voters and 417 million of these (58%) chose to exercise their right to franchise; 28% (200 million) were below the age of 25. In the coming elections, it is estimated that there will be approximately 800 million voters. It is also estimated that 110 million will be first-time voters — for whom old equations of caste, class and community do not matter, and who are more worried about jobs and law and order than labels. These statistics are what are going to make a major difference to elections — because no one knows how the young voter born in a liberalised India is going to vote.

So will social media make a difference in the 2014 general elections? A recent report seems to think so. A study carried out by the Iris Knowledge Foundation and the Internet and Mobile Users association seems to think that the 64 million Facebook users (who will swell to approximately 80 million by 2014) will have a considerable impact on key constituencies — 160 of them — across the country. They study has an interesting methodology and that is to look at victory margins in the last general elections and correlate it to the number of Facebook users from that constituency. They call those constituencies in which the number of Facebook Users is greater than the victory margin, or where the number of Facebook users is over 10% of the registered voters as High Impact constituencies. Medium impact constituencies are those where ‘a Facebook user can influence one other voter who may not be on Facebook” and more than 5% of registered voters are Facebook users a — 67 constituencies fall under this category. The rest are low or no impact –where social media will have little or no impact.

The report is excessively optimistic about the role of social media transforming electoral apathy into involvement. There are two major issues. The first is that not everyone who has a Facebook account and is eligible to vote is registered as a voter. The second is that not everyone who is registered to vote exercises their franchise. What is not evident in the study is whether there is a correlation between Facebook users in a given “High Impact” constituency, and whether they are even registered voters in that constituency, or even interested in voting and politics. Also important is that a large proportion of this Facebook population lives outside the constituency in which they may be registered. Furthermore, the view that one politically motivated person on Facebook will influence another — as suggested in the study — is far-fetched. They may act that way on issues that directly impact them — jobs, careers, security — but there is no evidence to show that it translates to voting for one candidate or the other at a constituency level.
Is there a role for social media in the forthcoming elections? In a roundabout manner, yes. It is possible to use the power of social media for two very important things. The first is a campaign to get voters to register and the second is to get them to vote on election day. It is only when GenNext registers and participates in the voting process that it can impact elections.

Maybe that should be the focus of social media — to motivate GenNext to participate. Because without their participation there can be no change.

Remembering Jallianwalla – 94th anniversary

 Uncategorized  No Responses »
Apr 132013
 

Today is the 94th anniversary of the jallianwalla bagh massacre, when the Brigadier Genera Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on people gathered at #Jallianwalla Bagh to mark Baisaki


Tehelka Blog – Dissecting the Gandhi speech

 Articles  No Responses »
Apr 052013
 

My blog for Tehelka

PTI photo

Jane Wyman, the first wife of the late US President Ronald Reagan was once asked how it was being married to him. She answered that he was a great guy, but had only one shortcoming, “Ask him the time and he’ll tell you how the watch was made.”

In the second half of his CII speech, Rahul Gandhi was asked about the centre-state relationship based on the constitution and how the tussle between rules at the state and Centre hampers economic development. But the Gandhi scion began discussing the 73rd and 74th amendment and the need for decentralisation. For him, it was a structural issue. If he was a professor in a university, and the audience his students, it would have been a way of getting the students to think about the problem differently – the need to devolve power to the local elected representative and letting them deal with “lower level policy”, leavi

ng members of the state and Central legislature to deal with “higher level policy”. But in a CII meeting, maybe something more specific was needed – issues relating to GST, FDI in retail, issues of domestic agenda spilling into international relations and impacting business. Instead, business leaders got a lecture on the constitutional issues at the core of the Centre-state tussles. If you tell people who run multi-crore companies, spread over distinct geographies, that the system cannot get work done because the “organisation structure” was flawed and “roles and responsibilities” were wrongly designed, they will tell you how to fix it.

Jim: Yes as I said, I’m glad you asked me that question because it’s a question that a lot of people are asking, and quite so, because a lot of people want to know the answer to it. And let’s be quite clear about this without beating about the bush the plain fact of the matter is that it is a very important question indeed and people have a right to know.
Bob: Minister, we haven’t yet had the answer.
Jim: I’m sorry, what was the question?
Yes Minister – interaction between the Minister Jim Hacker, and Bob the Journalist

The question and answer session, in which Mr. Gandhi gave tangential answers to rather straight questions (the second was on water and waste water management and his response was on how complexity makes India competitive) was preceded by a speech.

It was a speech that was great on homilies and metaphors, great on intentions and adjectives, great on laying out the problems and rather short and vague on specifics. It was a speech that was really all over the place, was difficult to get a strand or focused agenda or a vision. It had some great words such as compassion, harmony and optimism, but overall it did not seem to have a direction. It sounded more like a US campaign stump speech than an address to a room full of high powered business leaders. You could almost close your eyes and hear a Clinton or a Bush or an Obama deliver this line with great gravitas. “We are now sitting on an unstoppable tide of human aspiration. A tide so great, that it is going to move forward regardless of what we do. But for this massive movement of people and ideas to be truly transformational we need to nurture it. We need to make it harmonious; we need to make it happen smoothly.”

That gravitas was lacking. He came across better in the Q & A session than he did in the speech.

If you left aside the fact that his party has been in power for the last nine years on a trot, and a good 40+ years immediately after independence, Mr. Gandhi made good points and observations about the system and its flaws. His points on the optimism of Indians, the need for infrastructure, the need to not leave people behind, the need for harmony – most will be hard-pressed to argue against these. But the speech was incomplete. The problems he discussed, the concerns he raised are all very real. But there were no solutions, nor was there direction. For example, his arguments in building structures between academia and industry, converting the closed university silos to open networked systems – were great, but it was incomplete. What was needed was a single line that told us the thought process in getting it off the ground. A single line that said this is what needs to be done, and this is how the Government is going to act as a catalyst or an enabler. The solutions cannot be ours alone. How does he, or his party, plan to change the situation? There had to be a vision, a leadership, which was evidently lacking.

Rahul’s mangled metaphors:

  • India actually is energy, it is a force.

  • We are now sitting on an unstoppable tide of human aspiration.

  • Democracy and technology have triggered a non-reversible chain reaction in India.

  • We have to provide the roads on which our dreams are paved.

  • They (women) are not only building boats, they’re the waves

 Older Entries